Fuck our grandparents, they tilled the soil that grew this hate. It’s our children we should think of… how would they feel about what we’re doing about this problem.
They have a point. Calling your progenitors poor stock if they enabled racists is valid. What are you going to do about it other than sling mud at others?
Ah, interesting. Values handed down through cultures and families are a thing though, given Nazi shooting is a behavior and set of values, that was how I interpreted it.
Incidentally, your font size does not exactly have the impact you might think, we’re not all a bunch of teens here.
I mean, he was driving the car most of the time from my understanding. So, while I don’t accept the premise of your question; yes, he was proud of her.
Unfortunately though they are outliers. Not common or the rule. A far too large part of that generation despite fighting fascists overseas, voted almost exclusively for fascists locally. For decades. Pre 1964 it was honestly a rough choice. I’ll give them that much. You had the fascistic Republicans chock full of antisemites and Hitler sympathizers. Who in the 1930s had gotten caught, forming a fascist plot to depose FDR. End the new deal, and turn America into a business friendly fascist dictatorship. Or the extremely bigoted Dixiecrats to choose between.
Post 1964 it quickly became more and more unjustifiable to vote for Republicans. But they still did. In droves even. Between Nixon and Reagan the breaks came off. With the folksy fascist winning in an electoral landslide. Doing so much deep lasting damage that we’re still assessing the damage to this day. Terrifying Democrats for 2 generations now and cowing them into nothing more than complicit, milquetoast enablers.
Don’t get me wrong, I vote against Republicans in every election. Which generally means voting for Democrats. Who often don’t even run at the state and local level here for many offices. But America, for the last 100 years has absolutely let fascism openly fester.
And yet if you, as a leftist, suggest that we should be arming ourselves like our enemies who have openly said they want to kill us, you’ll be called a redneck gun nut, Russian troll, and/or fake leftist.
I have not seen this argument you claim. If a liberal wants to own a gun, they can own a gun. Genuine leftists, particularly of the seize-the-means-of-production sort, are also not exactly unfamiliar with violence.
Perhaps you are hanging out with … trolls?
Or perhaps actually calling for violence, which would get your comments removed, on here at least?
Hi there! Looks like you linked to a Lemmy community using a URL instead of its name, which doesn’t work well for people on different instances. Try fixing it like this: !liberalgunowners
Those folks have clearly never met a real redneck, let alone a socialist one. I dream of the day when there are more privately owned functional artillery pieces in the US than people. Imagine if unions could just blast away Pinkertons, Scabs, and Police with high explosive shells.
Also corporations and police shouldnt even be allowed to own guns, fuck you fight me!
You know, I’ve never done that or even suggested that people on the left should not have guns, yet I remember people here (and I’m pretty sure you were one of them) telling me that’s what I wanted because they decided that something like me saying “I think there should be heavier regulations” or “maybe guns should be kept out of the hands of people who have been institutionalized for mental illness” means I want everyone’s gun to be seized by Trump personally.
With 40% of the population supporting these rancid fascist fucknuggets there’s no meaningful way to deplatform them and they know it. They need fear beaten back into them.
Same fucking guy who in Obama’s last year said “we Republicans are setting a precedent for not confirming new Justices in a president’s last year of office.” Then they bring in Barrett right before Trump exits.
Biden if you were looking for a chance to prove you’re about reform and equality for working classes, now is your chance to pardon this guy and give him a position in department of treasurey.
It will never happen. Biden is owned by the same people as Trump. There’s only one party, the party of the Oligarchs. All of the petty shit about abortion, trans rights, gay rights, racial equality, gender equality, religion, second amendment, etcetera are all distractions to keep us all at each others throats while the rich cocksuckers figure out more insidious ways to fuck us all over.
This sounds a lot like the one party “they’re all the same” bullshit that right wingers like to propogate.
Because make no mistake, one party is at least trying to push laws through that help (democrats), versus the other which just openly fucks people and doesn’t give a shit about helping out.
44 Democrat senators, 36 Republicans and Joe Biden all worked together to pass a law forcing a union to accept a contract it’s members had already voted on and rejected.
Wow. Thanks for cherry picking one thing out of hundreds to show your point! That’s a solid way of arguing.
Would you like me to cherry pick an example of one which disproves you? Or would you like to examine the evidence as a whole and actually properly examine it?
Let me explain it to you since you don’t seem to understand.
OP makes a statement that all democrats and republicans act the same and are equal.
I say no, that’s not right.
Other poster says well if you look at this one example, they voted together!
I said looking at one example isn’t reflective of the whole picture. That I can just pick another example that shows they don’t vote together. You need to look at it overall instead of cherypicking facts that suit you.
Do you understand the logic there and why what you wrote makes no sense?
“It will never happen. Biden is owned by the same people as Trump. There’s only one party, the party of the Oligarchs. All of the petty shit about abortion, trans rights, gay rights, racial equality, gender equality, religion, second amendment, etcetera are all distractions to keep us all at each others throats while the rich cocksuckers figure out more insidious ways to fuck us all over.”
Sorry, here you go since you missed the comment seemingly.
“It will never happen. Biden is owned by the same people as Trump. There’s only one party, the party of the Oligarchs.”
Did you even read what OP said lol? It’s right in front of you, the first sentences. If I’m being dishonest then you are on another level of insane/lying.
Biden is owned by the same people as Trump. There’s only one party, the party of the Oligarchs.
Is not the same as
all democrats and republicans act the same and are equal
Refusing to see nuance in the difference between the sentiment of these two statements does a disservice to yourself and your cause (unless you’re on the side of the billionaires).
So here you go since you missed the distinction: they can both be (and are) corrupt, without being “the same”.
People like to point out all the ways they’re not the same and one team is better than the other. Fine. Those things can all be true, and politicians in both those parties are still corrupt.
It was only a couple presidents ago that Democrats had the House, Senate, and President. Even then they couldn’t get their own members to vote for anti-corruption legislation.
This is a fair reply, but it sounds like we’re both on the same page. Yes, both parties have their own issues but saying they’re the same isn’t correct. If you’re in a position of picking between them then clearly one side is less corrupt than the other.
It’s great that you picked the one option where Democrats were trying to help thos railroad workers but Republicans refused. Then when Democrats have to continue the literal working infrastructure of the United States, they get the blame for it… Rather than the company owners and Republicans lmfao. Democrats literally didn’t not have enough votes on their own.
Sounds like Fox News is working to me. Because 90% of Lemmy does nothing but peddle it lol.
It’s great that you picked the one option where Democrats were trying to help thos railroad workers but Republicans refused.
The railroad workers didn’t need the “help” of Democrats anymore than the UAW did. They were preparing to strike and would have gotten their demands.
Democrats literally didn’t not have enough votes on their own.
THEN THEY SHOULD HAVE STAYED THE FUCK OUT OF IT.
Do not block strikes. End of story.
Sounds like Fox News is working to me. Because 90% of Lemmy does nothing but peddle it lol.
You need to pull your head out of your ass if you think there are zero people who voted for Biden in the 2020 general election and will refuse to vote for him in 2024 over this. The rail workers contract expires at the end of this year. The next president will be faced with the same choice. If Biden believes Trump to be the biggest threat we face then promising to veto any attempts to force a contract on the workers is a bargain.
Make a fucking choice. You want to save Democracy? Here you go. Here’s the offer. Reject the offer and we’ll vote 3rd party. Stop thinking you can get us to vote for Biden by any other means.
The cognitive dissonance or prop washing is tangible lol.
If you sound like a Fox News segment after typing something out, maybe rethink the reality of what you’re trying to say vs what you’re actually saying. Hell, you even agreed with what I said in ad many words lol.
How about the public option with the ACA? The Democrats used their super majority to pass a Republican crafted bill that simply enshrined the shitty status quo into law, even going so far as to fine you if you didn’t participate in said system. We still pay the highest per capita amount for healthcare in the entire world. What did we really get out of that? The end of “pre-existing conditions” and the option to purchase the same expensive, bare-bones insurance coverage from someone besides your employer?
People who voted for Biden in the 2020 primaries did the fascists a favor. They decided they’d rather risk losing to fascists a second time than compromise with leftists. Biden did the fascists a favor when he called on congress to block the rail strike.
Fuck Joe Biden and anybody who voted for him in the 2020 primaries.
Yeah, yeah, just shut down any discussion with this canned response calling the other person a fascist. The drunk, neglectful mother is really the good parent because the father is verbally, and sometimes physically, abusive. We shall never criticize the mother because we are so fortunate to have her and that is the end of the discussion.
Wow this is an insane take. I don’t often speak to right wingers but this is pretty far from reality. None of what you wrote is accurate and I never called anyone a fascist.
I’m just relying on the evidence that clearly doesn’t line up with whatever rhetoric you’re spewing. Jeez that’s vile though.
“One party is at least trying to push laws through that help”
You’re getting closer to my point.You admit how ineffectual they are. The dems pretend to help while lettting themselves get steamrolled by the repubs. This is not accidental. How do I know this? Look at the shit that really matters to the war machine, that shit always passes: money for the war in Ukraine (that we instigated), money for Israel (who just happen to be committing genocide right now), money for the military budget (last year they gave them 50 billion extra that they didn’t even have to ask for). That’s 886 BILLION dollars to spread “democracy” to countries around the world. That’s more than the next 10 countries spent on their military combined.
Either you’ve lived life under a rock to not notice the shit going on around you, or you’re a shill for the dems. Pull your head out of your rectum and look around. People are hurting, and if you’re not, good for you, you’re lucky. How long do you think your luck will hold out?
I’m not admitting how ineffectual they are. It’s just hard to push laws through when one party is clearly trying to stop you from doing the right thing.
It’s like saying that people fighting for climate change are the same as those arguing against climate change because they’re not getting climate change law through.
Your point either makes no sense or you’re arguing in bad faith. I wish it was the first but I’ve dealt with too many people who are just trolling and reporting right wing rhetoric.
Whenever dems start losing an argument these days, they’re quick to call it “right-wing rhetoric”. I take this as an ad-hominem attack since I’ve been a lefty all my life. I voted for Bill Clinton. I voted for Barack Obama in 2008. I would have voted for Bernie Sanders in 2016, but the lying, cheating fucks in the DNC stole the nomination, and we ended up with a clown-ass gameshow host as president.
Hey, guess what single entity in the world is the biggest polluter. The US fucking military. The same military that dems and reps overwhelmingly vote to give mountains of cash to every fucking year.
You say I’M arguing in bad faith? The other (literally Machiavellian) tactic that shit-libs like to use is to accuse the opposition of the thing they themselves are guilty of. I like how you glossed right over the whole funding the military aspect of my argument, as if murdering people for their resources is just business as usual. Obviously you’re not affected by it so why should you care?
Ok you’re completely ignoring my points and just parroting a single example you can’t move on from, which again, is my issue with your post. And I’m not trying to win the argument, just walk through basic facts/logic. You are the one using ad hominems against myself which is ironic.
So we’ll just have to agree to disagree as you aren’t doing this in good faith or are purposely trolling.
What “single point” am I parroting? I thought I made several points that you just fucking ignored.
Dems and repubs are both owned by the oligarchs.
Dems pretend to be innefectual on purpose, because they are paid and or threatened.
Dems voted to support the war in Ukraine which we goaded them into. 4.Dems vote with repubs to give money to Israel that they, in turn, are using to commit genocide.
Dems vote with repubs to spend boatloads of money on our military, that would be better spent here at home.
The US military is the biggest single entity causing the most pollution globally.
You haven’t replied to any of those things, again accusing me of what you’re guilty of. Your “points”? Blue fascist good, red fascist bad. Yeah, OK. So dems try to sound more sympathetic while letting big pharma and the military-industrial complex fuck the world over. The outcome is going to be the same either way.
I also came up in an abusive household, so here’s somerhing to think about: who’s worse, the abuser who only knows abuse because they were abused, or the one who allows it to happen even though they know it’s wrong? That’s what we have now. The reps suck, no doubt, but the dems sit back and twiddle their thumbs and allow the corporations to fuck us all over while pretending to give a shit. They don’t give a shit because they’ve sold us out for a little bigger piece of pie.
Dude, Joe Biden is a career politician. He’s trash… But he’s still better than Trump. Trump is a fucking dumpster fire threatening to light this whole world on fire.
I know that sounds dismissive, but if you have no healthcare and can’t afford a place to live, and your right to dissent is eroded every day, then all of the other differences won’t matter when we’re dead.
Fuck this bullshit. There is a difference here, and what you’re spouting here is pure Propaganda.
I agree the wealthy on both sides IS treated differently from all of the rest of us, but that doesn’t mean there’s no difference between fascism and the failure of progress.
I wish trump was going to aid the dissolution of the west lol. You’re giving him too much credit. In actuality the only thing he would do differently is dominate the US’s allies slightly more and spread slightly more racist rhetoric. Considering the US empire will commit genocide in either case nothing justifies legitimizing it by participating.
Another thing. If that were going to happen, why hasn’t he pardoned Julian Assange yet, hmm? Assange embarassed the elites and exposed their bullshit. Trump was his fan for a minute until his bullshit got exposed too. Turns out that Hillary has more ties with Russia than Trump. It’s the Machiavellian strategy: accuse your opponent of the thing you’re guilty of.
Real people will die if he becomes POTUS again and yet America minces words about what kind of ideology he represents. He better hope the mob doesn’t ever get their hands on him.
"Karashta, you don't want kids? You'd make a great dad."
I've been asked this several times by close friends since my early 20s. My response has always been about what I feel is the irresponsibility of bringing a child I will desperately love into a world that I've seen crumbling around me since my teens.
People called me stupid for believing in things like the oncoming ecological and societal collapses, despite me trying to show them what I'd seen and read.
Somehow, "I told you so," doesn't, in any way, make me feel better about the situation.
Most of the apocalyptic things people imagine are not supported by science at this point, and those that are possible can still be averted. But I also think that our children will find a way to adapt despite our problems. Will it be easy? No, but life is not easy even without the climate going haywire, and we find a way to live anyway. Our descendants will do the same.
This is completely unrelated to anything I said. I have personally dedicated my life to working to solve this and other environmental issues so calling me a bystander is hilariously wrong. In fact, doomerism is a big reason many people don’t act which is what I’m arguing against. Feeling some optimism the future will help you take real action in your community instead of doom-scrolling. And as I said there is no scientific basis to believe that climate change will kill all of us.
Life finds a way is one of the top ten anti climate change propaganda myths. Life doesn’t always find a way. Sometimes life gets blasted in the face and goes through a mass extinction event. Saying you think our kids will find a way to adapt is taking the passive bystander approach.
No it isn’t. That’s a nonsensical statement that is at odds with both human nature and climate science. People need to believe that there is hope or they will not act.
So far, there are always survivors of the mass extinctions. No indication that this one will be different.
Because saying things like, “I trust our kids” is part of how climate denialism was sold to Boomers and Gen X. We tried the low pressure approach. It’s time to panic people.
But this is not and has never been part of climate denialism messaging. In fact, the type of false statements you have been making (e.g. 99% of people dying—there is absolutely no scientific basis for this idea) are increasingly amplified by denialists to convince everyone that it’s too late to do anything.
Research on this topic supports that a hopeful outlook not only does not reduce climate action, it helps to encourage it by reducing a sense that actions won’t have any real effect: conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/…/cobi.14020
We found that hope and optimism did not undermine perceptions about serious of the threat or likelihood of action. In fact, hope was associated with stronger threat appraisal and indicators of action. These findings provide important support for proponents of hope and optimism and a counter to those who suggest that positive states undermine recognition of conservation challenges.
So the science supports neither the idea that our children are doomed nor that holding a realistic but hopeful view of the future will prevent people from acting. In fact it is the exact thing people need to empower them to act.
There's been a documented decline of about 70% in animal populations, the amount of weather and climate related destruction has demonstrably increased, there's traces of plastic and forever chemicals almost literally all over, Australia was on fire for half a year, wildfires are increasing in frequency in the western US, hurricanes are coming with increasing frequency and intensity from the gulf up the Atlantic.
There's also the fires that tore across Greece, the tornadoes forming in states in the US that have seemingly never had them before, the massive loss of ice from Arctic and Antarctic areas of the world.
This is just a small smattering of the things I remember from recently.
I'm not saying that next year everything is going to immediately collapse. But I can see the stability of the ecosphere dissolving in front of me and there are quite a few nations that seem like they are leaning towards collapse if history is any judge of things.
And yet people continue to live their lives and create joy and meaning despite these problems. You underestimate the resilience of humanity.
Most governments and economic systems are harmful and have created these problems in the first place, so their collapse could be an important part of solving these problems and creating something new and better.
My mom is desperate for grandchildren and she is so upset that our branch of the family will end with me. I’m not ever having a child or adopting. Shit is way too fucked for that and is only getting worse. I’m 26, and I fully expect to see society as we know it collapse within my lifetime. My hope is that humanity falling due to its own hubris will allow the planet to finally heal.
“Nothing scares me. Nothing hurts me anymore,” a young YouTuber tells the camera as snowflakes cut across the frame. He is shirtless in a Michigan January, he tells viewers, to make a point about embracing discomfort in order to become a great, powerful man.
The YouTuber, who goes by the handle iamLucid, tells the camera he can stand the below-freezing temperature because he has been taking cold showers every day and, crucially, hasn’t masturbated to pornography in a year.
“That’s the most beta thing you can do. That’s the weakest thing any man can do,” he says.
Like the idiot fucking Boomers before them, these people are preaching putting up with the bullshit you’re abused with as being “strong.”
Good job being an effective slave you fucking idiot. Good slaves think they’re strong because the abuse they suffer doesn’t bother them.
Yeah, working forty years for the same motherfucker who keeps paying you less year after year while paying himself more really shows how “tough” you fucking idiots are.
“I don’t cry when my daddy abuses me,” isn’t the fucking flex you think it is, guys. It means you’re broken, not strong. People who punch dad in the fucking nose and get his abusive ass arrested are strong. People who put up with abuse are weak and broken.
Good to see young men are just as fucking stupid as their forebears. /s
Young Men: “Everyone assumes we’re all terrible just because we’re men, we’re not given a chance!”
Also Young Men: Immediately embrace fucking backwards ass thinking that really justifies the assumption that they’re all fucking terrible by default.
If they’re trying to prove otherwise, they’re fucking failing because they are god damned idiots obsessed with cro-magnon strength like that matters in the modern world.
“I don’t cry when my daddy abuses me,” isn’t the fucking flex you think it is, guys. It means you’re broken, not strong. People who punch dad in the fucking nose and get his abusive ass arrested are strong. People who put up with abuse are weak and broken.
This part reminded me of the Behind the Basters episodes on Henry Kissinger. He would routinely get beat up by Nazi kids when he was still in Germany, but once he was an adult he would brag about how it never really bothered him.
A few things though, some folks enjoy the cold, and cold immersion, and that’s fine. There are some studies that in some people there can be some benefits. Great.
Also, strength can be very … Empowering. And some folks have legitimate lifestyles where being strong is a major benefit. Great. Seeking to be strong does not make one “cro magnon” in motivation.
But things like strength/fitness are made in the gym, and in the kitchen. Not in some odd biohack.
Ultimately, the user’s habits don’t seem like they’re hurting anyone (unless there is context not shared in the quote.) And if so, good for them. Whatever placebo makes them feel confident/happy, good for them. There’s people out there rubbing crystals and imbibing in essential oils lol. Issues only arise if they hurt or discredit others, which, the quote suggests, this user somewhat does. (Shaming those who masturbate).
Resiliency is incredibly valuable, and being in and working through tough situations is the greatest teacher for it. E.g. “I’ve dealt with worse, this is nothing.”
But there are definitely healthy and unhealthy ways to gain resiliency. Those tough situations should be a net positive experience, and a something gradually worked up to in a way that doesn’t cause physical/mental harm to one’s self – always in pursuit of something worthwhile.
Fucked up shit pushed by insecure weirdos on the internet is none of those things.
Ultimately, the user’s habits don’t seem like they’re hurting anyone
You are ignoring the OP article which makes it very clear that this movement definitely hurts someone, since it is ideologically linked to the far right, and is a huge right wing pipeline, literally being the cause of hatred and bigotry (at best).
A hearty and genuine go fuck yourself you moronic piece of shit. Abuse happens in all diff forms and all the responses to it (fight, flight, freeze, fawn) are involuntary.
“The indivuals”. Four. Four guys. That’s all. Of all the Israeli illegal settlers, a whole total of FOUR are getting banned from buying US properties…which I doubt they wanted to, anyway.
thanks for the clarification as my country is banned from clicking on that link and I’m too lazy to shit my pants on another website.
Even if it’s just lip service to get votes from the left, I’m happy to see the narrative manifesting itself in the white house. they obviously know that voters want.
unfortunately by the time any serious policy would be enacted, Palestine will be gone.
Four people is not doing something. Four people is doing the smallest possible amount so that cheerleaders like yourself can say “Hey, they’re trying to do something” to Muslim-Americans in Michigan.
It’s transparent and doesn’t even do that, though.
All of these things are vastly more complicated than it appears on the surface - to say that they shouldn’t do a thing because they should do another thing is not productive, hey lets just do nothing and be mad about it on the internet guys.
And what does anything have to do with Michigan? Are you a real person?
Yes, I am a real person. Demographic shifts, which are very well known to every political person, have made Muslim Americans a required component of a democratic win in most of the mid west swing states, but especially Michigan.
The Democratic party is starting to freak out because Biden’s explicit backing of a genocide has dropped his support among Muslim Americans from 60-65% into the single digits.
The Electoral map for a Democratic win without the Midwest Muslim American vote is so unrealistic as to be fantasy.
This is why they are doing this. It’s a throwaway token gesture. And the people it’s supposed to appease know it too.
Go pedal your anti-Semitic ‘Jewish people are all members of Israel and any criticism of a white nationalist apartheid ethnostate is antisemitic’ nonsense elsewhere.
The ICJ ruled that Israel is plausibly committing genocide, and multiple human rights orbs have declared Israel an apartheid country.
But, you know what? We don’t need them. Anyone who knows anything about history or war knows that a country that tries to deal with a problematic population by completely cutting of ftheir access to food, medicine, and potable water is committing genocide.
I never said criticizing Israel is antisemitic. I said accusing tbem of genocide is almost certainly anti-semitic, based on tbe fact that it has been every other it eas claimed. If you are going to share the claims of thousands of years worth of antisemites, yoi have to be able to explain how you are different.
You haven’t done that, but i’m willing to give you that opportunity.
But also, i 100% believe you when you say you don’t need the people who actually determine whether something is a genocide to agree with you.
And yet, they still did agree that Israel was plausibly committing genocide.
I did, in fact, explain my criterion, and it is true regardless which country does it, and it is why I say with confidence it’s why Israel is committing genocide. You just glossed over it, because it didn’t fit with your narrative.
If a government deals with a population it feels is problematic by cutting off food, medicine, and potable water to that population, that government is in the process of committing genocide.
Good job devaluing the meaning of the word anti-semitic in your rush to defend genocide.
EDIT: I sincerely hope you never try to eat grass due to starvation because a government is blocking all attempts to give you food. I hope this even though you are actively defending the government doing the starving right now.
When the ICJ makes their ruling and hits Israel with the war crimes they have done but fully expel all genocide claims, are you going to accept their findings?
I will say it a third time for those so caught up in their own jurisdiction of genocide that they no longer have reading comprehension.
Any country that deals with a population it considers problematic by completely restricting access to food, medicine, and potable water is a government committing genocide.
It’s not a hard to understand concept. Why have you ignored this simple criterion that Israel is publicly doing three times in a row?
Stop defending genocide by hiding behind false claims, made in bad faith, of anti-semitism.
Tell me again why claims of genocide are antisemitic when the literal court adjudicating claims of genocide have found that Israel is plausibly committing genocide?
Honestly, if he did nothing it would be a huge improvement. Instead, he’s proactively sponsoring the genocide with his blank-check policy on military backing and endless exports of the latest in mass mutilation technologies into the hands of known killers.
When you’ve outflanked Ronald Reagan to the right, because you cannot conceive of curbing the flow of tanks, bombs, and other killing machines into the country, maybe there’s a legitimate reason you’re being criticized?
Firstly, positive to see more criticism and friction between Israel and US officials, and that resulting in unilateral action against extreme elements of Israeli society. I recognize that international and domestic politics are hard to balance, and its campaign season.
But holy shit this solves nothing. “It’s a start” certainly, but there shouldn’t even be settlers. Oslo II very clearly, with lines on the map agreed to by both sides, set out that the West Bank and Gaza is Palestinian, for Palestinians.
At what point does the US alliance with Israel cost us more than it’s worth, especially when this unlimited support is directly harmful to other regional allies like Jordan or Egypt?
Interesting how you used Oslo II and not the failed camp David summit options that Israel tried. Palestine is in an even worse state than it was back then yet still fighting for the same thing.
You also bring this up without any thought of the Abraham accords which is more interesting. Israel might be digging it’s own grave but the US needs them as they are a strategic ally deep in the heart of the OIC block. So people shouldn’t expect the US’s involvement other than support.
Oslo II was signed by the PLO on behalf of the Palestinian people. It’s the most recent document that both sides agreed to, dealing with partition of land. Israel has failed to do what it agreed to and slowly cede back the West Bank entirely - they have done the opposite and taken more land.
Camp David accords was between Israel and Egypt, decided without the Palestinians, and condemned by the UN and rejected as illegitimate by;
Resolution 33/28
Resolution 34/70
Resolution 34/65 B
And yes the rapprochement with the Saudis is a big development towards normalization and stability for Israel, and cements alliances between the region - but Israeli realpolitik is fucking up the juggling act US diplomats are doing.
Sorry I forgot the part where PLO leader Arafat refusing any concessions in camp David was Egypt’s doing. I forgot that the reason the second intifada and Hamas uprising was because of pesky old Egypt not negotiating for them or that the UN called it illegitimate. The part where the entire world was puzzled why Palestinians refused any offers that apparently Egypt was doing, very weird.
Arafat wasn’t a part of the Camp David Accords in 1978, you’re confused with the 2000 Camp David summit.
That 2000 summit fell apart because of a loggerhead over what is fundamental to both sides, and an Israeli negotiation redline hypocrisy - right of return. Arafat may well have been an Arab nationalist who wanted the three no’s forever and wouldn’t sign anything - but then why engage and negotiate at all? Concessions were offered from on both sides but Israel refused to permit those in the diaspora to return to their land, all while funding birthright trips for foreign Jews.
Egypt has a viable country and government, and got the canal back and A SHITLOAD of land Israel had taken. Palestinians were being offered what the US and Canada gave the First Nations after we broke treaty after treaty.
Ah shit you got me i got the words swapped. I meant the summit being the last attempt of a treaty that Arafat didnt even bother trying to negotiate. What i was trying to say was there was an attempt for land swaps and a passage way for peace but the PLO captain shat his pants and decided he wants murder on his hands. Oslo II might have been the last official treaty but there have been attempts to get peace and a 2 state solution since then.
The only reason Egypt even has the Sinai back is because Israel offered it back as a sign of peace after it was captured. Palestinians have nothing to offer. Not even the Egyptians want them back in the Sinai now.
I meant the summit being the last attempt of a treaty that Arafat didnt even bother trying to negotiate.
@febra has addressed this point very nicely in a post which unfortunately is no longer readable. So allow me to quote it because it shows very well how insulting, I’d say on purpose, the whole proposal of Israel was. They just wanted something so outlandish that it was refused outright so they can later say “See we tried but they don’t want to talk!!!”. The whole tactic is very similar to Austria-Hungary’s ultimatum to Serbia which they specifically worded so Serbia had to refuse it or stop being a sovereign state.
Anyway here’s the post of @febra. It’s a bit long but definitely worth the read to get a better understanding of this very complex situation:
I am sorry to tell you this, but you definitely ought look deeper into the peace accords as they were discussed at the time. Especially the ones at Camp David which were supposed to be the most fruitious and the ones Palestinians “threw out the door”. The Oslo accords were more of a guideline than a clear set of instructions. They were a very loose set of vague directions both sides were supposed to go down on. Before that there were no other concrete accords. One would argue that the Camp David Summit was the closest both sides ever got to making peace. So let’s take a look at that one and use it as a good compass in this discussion.
Palestinians were supposed to:
be completely demilitarized
give Israel the right to send troops to Palestine in case of any emergency (what constitutes as an emergency was never defined)
ask Israel for approval for every diplomatic alliance Palestine would ever make with other countries
have Israeli military bases installed in Palestinian territory
give the Israeli military complete control of their airspace
have israeli military outposts be installed on the border between Palestine and Jordan for a temporary amount of time
give Israel temporary control over Palestinian border crossings (without having a specified timeframe)
give up 10% of the West Bank, the most fertile land in the West Bank, for 1% territorial gains of desert land near the Gaza strip (the land that would be conceded included symbolic and cultural territories such as the Al-Aqsa Mosque, whereas the Israeli land conceded was unspecified)
Israel would keep parts of the West Bank under temporary occupation, without a timespan being given
What constitutes the West Bank was to be defined by Israel and not by international law. Israel defined West Bank as being the internationally recognized West Bank minus all the settlements they had at the time.
As you can see, all of these concessions would never amount to a completely sovereign Palestinian state, and as a result of that these talks failed in the end. To me, it looks like they were designed to fail from the get-go. Nonetheless, they did spawn new discussions and as a result of said discussion the Taba negotiations were born. With that being said, these concessions were in no way, shape, or form popular in Israel (only 25% of the Israeli public thought his positions on Camp David were just right as opposed to 58% of the public that thought Ehud Barak compromised too much). The Israeli prime minister at the time, Barak, facing elections, suspended the talks since it greatly affected his popularity in Israel. As a result of trying to broker a peace deal with Palestine, even a very bad one that was meant to fail as it was, he failed to get re-elected. The highly unbalanced concessions were already considered to be too much by Israelis.
Ehud Barak was from the Labour governments you were talking about, and this is the best Israel could ever come up with.
Trying to paint this situation as it being a level field where both sides did the same amount of wrongdoing is not a fair representation of the history of the peace process.
Since the most promising talks ever, the Camp David Summit, Israel has allowed over 750k settlers to move into the West Bank. A military regime has been installed and forced upon the occupied population contrary to international law. If getting the 30k settlers out of Gaza in 2005 was hard enough and almost caused an uproar inside the IDF, getting 750k settlers out of the West Bank will be straight up impossible without a major conflict.
There will never be two states and I wouldn’t jump to the conclusion that this was in majority the doing of the Palestinians. We should talk a good look at all these facts when we start discussing this conflict and use them as a compass.
You can read more on that on Wikipedia if you’re interested in all the details. If wikipedia isn’t a good enough source, there is a great book on this subject by a german professor specializing on the conflict between Israel and Palestine.
I absolutely don’t think any of these propositions are outlandish or even remotely insulting. This was a hindsight problem. Given that we are now 20 years into the future, Palestinians would be stupid to not agree to these if it were proposed again. But that won’t happen because of a multitude of reasons.
Again, all I was trying to say was that Oslo II was not the last time there was an attempt at a 2 state solution. Saying “take back to green line” is kind of dumb to me because that’s no longer in scope of a solution.
“Oh man israel committed so many war crimes since they last gave the Palestinians a bad deal, that the previous deal looks amazing to the war crimes Palestinians are suffering from right now.
But instead of offering the Palestinians the previous deal israel will offer one that is far worse than the situation Palestinians are in right now”.
Yeah why not, that’s how the world works. It’s not like Palestinians are making their case any better. There was relative peace and stability in he area for 20ish years until Hamas decided to shit their pants. Why would Israel want to give them any benefit of the doubt when they are proving themselves to not be trustworthy?
I absolutely don’t think any of these propositions are outlandish or even remotely insulting.
When you look at it from the perspective of the Palestinians who want their own country with the sovereignty this entails, it absolutely is insulting. With those limitations they would be little more than a puppet state of Israel. Not only another state but one they have serious grievances and a bloody history with. There’s no way they could accept this. Israel knew this very well!
I was ready to make a post on how the blockade didnt exist until Hamas took over and why but I would be interested to hear it from a Palestinian perspective.
I saw last night that Biden might be considering labelling them as sovereign. I feel like this would be a giant double edged sword for them. If Palestine becomes it’s own nation and Israel was forced to open the blockade that would be great for Palestinians. If Hamas still decided to attack Israel at this point then the IDF would have justification to attack even harder.
Not even the Egyptians want them back in the Sinai now.
That is an extremely problematic view. It reminds me of the Évian Conference where Hitler was arguing that “no one wants the jews” since the US, UK, and other countries refused to take in german jewish refugees, and thus “the final solution” was spawned. It’s an extremely dehumanising view that ended up in genocide. Please refrain from repeating such opinions.
Besides that, the Palestinians have a long history in Palestine. I don’t understand what you’re hinting at with “wanting them back”. Back where? They already have a home.
You misconstrued what I said. I meant they don’t have anything to offer either Israel nor Egypt. Even if they wanted to negotiate again, they don’t have anything going for them. Don’t twist my words to fit some other topic.
Tbh, if you don’t want people to misunderstand the things you say, then you need to start saying things with your chest. Stop posting inscrutable and reactionary blandities and start posting clear and intelligible opinions supported by as many facts as you’re able to muster. Lemmy will be a better place if you do :)
Wow so I don’t play along and you hit me with the “reactionary blandities”. You can confront what I said rather than spout off. I’m sure you have some great points to cover. I don’t particularly like being made a scarecrow but please educate me.
The point that I’m trying to make is that your comments are so nonspecific that it is impossible to “educate you” for the same reasons that it is impossible to nail a cloud to a wall. For example, in your first comment, you say that it is “Interesting how you used Oslo II and not the failed camp David summit options that Israel tried” but you don’t explain why you think it’s interesting or why they failed or why you think they should have succeeded but didn’t or any other jumping off point to give others a chance to agree with you or rebut you. You just said something bland and vague and impossible to pin down. How could anyone possibly agree or disagree or even have a discussion about a statement as generic as “I find this interesting!”?
Ummm all I tried to say was that it’s unfair to use a temporary solution (Oslo II) as the metric. I find it interesting that you can’t understand that. Do you want me to elaborate on why I find that interesting or do you want to address why the green line is still in contention? You seem to be an expert at deflecting.
Ummm all I tried to say was that it’s unfair to use a temporary solution (Oslo II) as the metric
So say that with your chest! Say what you believe clearly and concisely exactly like you just did, explain why you believe what you do, and do it in a top-level comment without someone having to prompt you twice to do it. If you want bonus points, provide relevant citations for your claims.
That’s how you make your posts corporeal rather than cloudlike. You have to put yourself out there and make your position known, and if you’re going to do that then you might as well take the time to come correct
You are pretty patronizing lol you came into this conversation not saying anything with expectations. I am not trying to debate lord like the rest of you guys. I generally write here the same way i talk. I am not trying to win debates. If you have any more suggestions, my suggestion box is right here 🗑
I honestly dont care what you guys think of me. That might be the difference between us. Not going to tiptoe every engagement because im afraid I might not have enough value to add.
You went this whole way just to tell me my position isnt strong enough as if this were my dissertation. While you are here you can atleast bring an opinion forth. Or do you need to look into the research on that first?
The do explain why you said “they don’t want them back”. When have the majority of Palestinians come from the Egyptian part of the Sinai peninsula? Since you’re obviously taking about this “back” it implies they must come from there, right? And please do explain what that message is hinting at or implying. Why would it even matter if someone “wanted them back”?
Let me put it this way for you: Do Europeans want the Ashkenazi Jews back? Does that even matter? Can you see how out of place this sounds now?
Why are you guys harping on one sentence… All I meant was that Palestine has 0 friends here. They have no leverage yet they want fucking Oslo II to come back like if the last 20 years was a bad dream.
Because you’re clearly showing your true colours. There’s no point in having a genuine conversation with someone that talks in such a dehumanising manner.
My true colors is that Palestinians fucked up? Where am I being dehumanizing? I am just pointing out that Oslo II is not now nor not ever going to be a solution unless Gaza start shitting gold. Green line is a distant memory.
Their shit disturbing at every opportunity is probably creating more problems than supporting them fixes. Every time Mossad goes off page and assassinates someone else, they’re making more enemies.
We know it’s because if there was ever peace accidentally made in that area, Israel would be out of a job and hence the money, so there’s no fucking way they’re going to let that happen. So destabilizing the area is in Israel’s best interests.
Huh??? How does Israel lose money if there was peace??? I am curious to hear your opinion on what kind of revenues makes up Israel’s GDP and where instability of the Middle East fits into that.
They had a budget surplus of less than $5b least year, so that money still makes a difference. Not sure if it’s just the usual $5b either right now, I didn’t go digging hard for it, but the data I saw for for much aid the US sends Israel was from before Oct.
US government gives $5b to various US weapons manufacturers who then send weapons to Israel, who then has weapons without needing to spend their own budget money on them, saving $5b.
They might. There’s peace because attacking is too dangerous (what they have now, at least with the nations not attacking them) vs peace because treaties are in place vs peace because no one wants to attack them. That middle one is risky because situations can change fast.
And there’s another angle that questions whether they wouldn’t need weapons during peace for less generous reasons.
So in the ideal scenario where there is lasting peace with open borders and open trade… Why would Israel need funding? If anything the whole region would benefit from this I don’t understand why people think that the country NEEDS instability. They are doing well off as is with these problems and I would bet everything I would ever own that lasting peace would make their situation even more profitable.
It’s optics, which are important. You can’t demand the US unilaterally solve Middle East peace or nothing matters.
And you (not literally you I just mean people) can’t get mad at “hugging Netanyahu” which also did literally nothing in reality, while dismissing this. They’re both optics. Early after Oct 7th Biden wanted to show compassion for Israel after the attack, now he’s showing that the US is not on the same page as Israeli leadership. Probably part of a top-level pressure campaign, starting small with private critiques, then public critiques, then actually sanctioning some extreme people, maybe next he threatens to withhold aid, we don’t know.
You can still argue the process isn’t going fast enough and you want whatever your proposed solution is, but it’s not ‘nothing’ for the same reasons you mentioned in your first paragraphs.
When the house is burning down you don’t start with the garden hose and wait for the structure to be fully engulfed before allowing the fire department to use just one hose. That’s a fine approach for normal diplomatic problems. But the genocide response playbook is very clear. You need to act swiftly and decisively to protect the victim group. They will be dead by the time normal politics ramps up to the levels required to save them.
I’d like to warn all the Americans against generalizing based upon their personal experiences or beliefs here. This is a UK study that sampled a UK population. These results can’t necessarily be generalized to any other country, this is focused on the UK culture.
There was a recent story on NPR that addressed this. I can’t find it now but basically it said that all these studies in isolation have issues but now there appears to be a trend that transcends national boundaries and cultures.
I don’t know about the NPR one, but Business Insider and the Financial Times had articles recently pulling together a bunch of surveys finding similar trends in the US and around the world respectively
“I am uncomfortable growing Tesla to be a leader in AI & robotics without having ~25% voting control. Enough to be influential, but not so much that I can’t be overturned,” Musk wrote in a post on X.
You HAD more than 25%, but you sold to below that to buy twitter for some reason. Why should Tesla give into your threat when you could just sell again to buy something else and threaten Tesla again?
Considering that he explicitly said that he moved to Romania because he felt he could operate with impunity there, it's good they're keeping him restricted.
Since the late 1800s, 494 MILLION firearms have been produced and sold in the US. That’s way more than one per person, including babies and toddlers.
when’s it gonna be enough I wonder?
Maybe it really isn’t about more guns, just more profits for the arms dealers? Maybe we could skip the middle-men and dead children murdered in their schools if we just pay off the arms dealers?
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.